Re:Oslo made its city center basically car-free
by unionemployee on Friday January 25, 2019 @03:19PM
(#19002103)
How would this work when our cities have been so heavily developed to favor the automobile? I'm for road users paying for the roads or access, but public transit is so lightly used in most of the US and there's so little existing infrastructure that it's at a severe disadvantage and can't take advantage network effects or economies of scale. Instead of a train near my house, there's an interstate highway. Our cities are already so sprawling and NIMBYism so strong. I wonder if it's too late for transit.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Oslo made its city center basically car-free
by MBlume on Friday January 25, 2019 @04:30PM
(#19002687)
Fast HOV lanes would make buses go faster, and if the HOV lane's expensive, most people would find taking a bus to use it most economical. Honestly I think if you instituted congestion pricing, Uber/Lyft would reinvent themselves as bus agencies in many cities.
Re:Oslo made its city center basically car-free
by danjayh on Friday January 25, 2019 @03:31PM
(#19002203)
I think public transit would only be viable in dense urban cores. In other areas, if the city desires to provide transportation assistance, I think it's probably more efficient to provide other forms of transportation to the working poor (who are typically the primary users of public transit in midsized cities). Here in Grand Rapids, the busses are so lightly used that it would probably be cheaper for the city to hand out Uber or Lyft credits for the people that are now using the busses (and it'd provide a better user experience too).
Re:Oslo made its city center basically car-free
by danjayh on Friday January 25, 2019 @05:55PM
(#19003417)
Can one of the people downvoting this into oblivion please explain? If a midsized city with little congestion could provide subsidized point-to-point transit for those who need it at a comparable cost to operating a bus system, what is the possible downside? This would be hugely beneficial to the people actually using the service, since they get all the time back that would have otherwise been spent waiting on transit services.
Re:Oslo made its city center basically car-free
by elcomet on Friday January 25, 2019 @06:32PM
(#19003634)
Don't you think this is relying a bit too much on private corporation like Uber and Lyft? What if they shut down, or leave the city? How long would it take to reorganize public transport?
Also, uber and Lyft would get to decide the prices, that could cost much more to the city.
I think a public transport has to be public, ie publicly owned.
Re:Oslo made its city center basically car-free
by aembleton on Saturday January 26, 2019 @03:40PM
(#19008344)
Why does it have to be publicly owned? For example, all of London buses are privately owned, but the bus companies are contracted to operate routes and the city sets the fares, colour scheme etc so that they all look the same.
Re:Oslo made its city center basically car-free
by elcomet on Saturday January 26, 2019 @06:35PM
(#19009286)
You're right, that's an other option. But can you say that it is really private if the city sets the price, and the routes?
And wouldn't it be better to have the same thing but public (so that benefits are used to actually improve the service, and not pay dividends)?